Database - (CIANE) | |
Description of this bibliographical database (CIANE website) |
https://ciane.net/id=2784 | ➡ Modify this record |
Bibliographical entry (without author) : | Efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction at term: A systematic review and meta-analysis - Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research - Vol. 40, 4 - p.897-906 |
Author(s) : | Liu, A.; Lv, J.; Hu, Y.; Lang, J.; Ma, L.; Chen, W. |
Year of publication : | 2014 |
URL(s) : | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.… |
Résumé (français) : |
|
Abstract (English) : | Aim: Recent studies suggest that misoprostol may be more effective than dinoprostone in pregnant women with unfavorable cervix. The objective here is to investigate and compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction, including incidence of cesarean section, vaginal delivery rate within 24 h, uterine hyperstimulation, tachysystole, oxytocin augmentation, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions, and Apgar score of less than 7 at 1 and 5 min. Methods: Databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to July 2013. Randomized controlled trials comparing intravaginal misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostone in women with singleton pregnancy, intact membranes and unfavorable cervix (Bishop’s <6) were included. Pooled relative risk, mean difference and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results: The use of misoprostol was significantly effective in increasing the rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h and less oxytocin augmentation when compared with dinoprostone. However, the incidents of uterine hyperstimulation and tachysystole were significantly higher under the misoprostol protocol than dinoprostone protocol. Furthermore, we found similar efficiency in the rate of cesarean delivery, NICU admission and Apgar score at 1 and 5 min among the study groups. Conclusion: Intravaginal misoprostol appears to be more efficient for labor induction than intracervical dinoprostone; however, dinoprostone has been demonstrated to be safer because of the lower incidence of uterine hyperstimulation and tachysystole. Further high-quality studies assessing the possible effectiveness of misoprostol and dinoprostone in selected groups of patients are warranted. © 2014 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. |
Sumário (português) : |
|
Resumen (español) : |
|
Comments : | |
Argument (français) : |
|
Argument (English): | |
Argumento (português): |
|
Argumento (español): |
|
Keywords : | |
Author of this record : | Import 26/11/2017 — 26 Nov 2017 |
Discussion (display only in English) | ||
---|---|---|
New expert query --- New simple query
Creating new record --- Importing records
User management --- Dump database --- Contact
This database created by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR) is managed
by Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, https://ciane.net).
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in documentation
(2) or financially supporting CIANE (see below)
(3) or joining any society affiliated with CIANE.
➡ Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
➡ Contact bibli(arobase)ciane.net for more information.
Donating to CIANE (click “Faire un don”) will help us to maintain and develop sites and public databases towards the support of parents and caregivers’ informed decisions with respect to childbirth |